At 05:55 AM 6/14/01 -0700 Jim Sharkey wrote:
>That's my biggest concern about this plan as well. It seems to me that any
>"rogue nation" with someone in charge that has an IQ over room temperature
>is unlikely to use a missile to deliver its nuclear payload.
The nice thing about a missile, as opposed to say, a suitcase bomb, is that
it focuses the attention. Its very easy to confirm whether or not
somebody has a nuclear weapon *and* a ballistic missile. Its not so easy
to confirm that person has a suitcase bomb, and actually has the suitcase
in your city. Those sorts of threats are probably a dime a dozen.
So yes, the USA *could* in theory, destroy a nuclear missile site, once
built. Then again, do you really want to put Saddam Hussein in the
position of "use your missile now, or forever lose your piece?" Unless
we are able to successfully thwart construction of the missile site in the
first place, I betcha that as soon as the thing goes OnLine, the USA wisely
pledges to stay as far away as possible.
Then, of course, the real fun begins - because you don't even need to *use*
your missile to cause some damage. If Saddam Hussein goes on television
and says "you have 12 hours to evacuate Charlotte", do you stay, or do you
go? And if, Hussein, say, has two nuclear missiles, calls our bluff, and
roasts Charlotte, if he says "Miami's turn is tomorrow, unless all
sanctions are lifted and the US begins paying war reparations", *then*
what?
JDG - In the case of Miami, "good riddance" is *not* a suitable answer! ;-)
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Compassionate conservatism is the way to reconcile the two most vital
conservative intellectual traditions: libertarianism & Catholic social
thought."
-Michael Gerson, advisor to George W. Bush
